Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Five, Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Six, Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Seven

Classes on 3 Chapters Rambam
View more classes
Show content in:

Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Five


When a person enters into a partnership agreement without making any stipulations, he should not deviate from the local custom followed with regard to that merchandise. He should not take the merchandise and travel to another place, enter into a partnership with other individuals, be involved with other merchandise, sell it on an extended payment plan unless it is ordinarily sold in such a manner, nor should it be entrusted to others unless a stipulation to that effect was made at the outset or he did so with the consent of his colleague.

If a partner transgresses, and performs one of the above activities without the knowledge of his colleague, but when he informs him afterwards of what he did the other partner agrees, he is not liable. A kinyan is not necessary to formalize a partner's consent to any of the above matters; a verbal commitment is sufficient.


הַמִּשְׁתַּתֵּף עִם חֲבֵרוֹ בִּסְתָם לֹא יְשַׁנֶּה מִמִּנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה בְּאוֹתָהּ הַסְּחוֹרָה. וְלֹא יֵלֵךְ לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר וְלֹא יִשְׁתַּתֵּף בָּהּ עִם אֲחֵרִים וְלֹא יִתְעַסֵּק בִּסְחוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת וְלֹא יִמְכֹּר בְּהַקָּפָה אֶלָּא דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהִמָּכֵר תָּמִיד בְּהַקָּפָה וְלֹא יַפְקִיד בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִתְנוּ בַּתְּחִלָּה אוֹ שֶׁעָשָׂה מִדַּעַת חֲבֵרוֹ. עָבַר וְעָשָׂה שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת חֲבֵרוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הוֹדִיעוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ עָשִׂיתִי כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְהִסְכִּים לְמַעֲשָׂיו הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. וְאֵין כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ צְרִיכִין קִנְיָן אֶלָּא בִּדְבָרִים בִּלְבַד:


When one of the partners transgresses and sells merchandise on credit, takes it on a sea voyage, travels with it to another place, does business with other merchandise at the same time, or the like, he alone is liable to pay for any loss that occurs because of his activity. If he profits from his activity, the profit should be split between the partners according to their stipulations regarding profit.

For this reason, the following rules apply when a person gives a colleague money to purchase wheat as part of a partnership agreement and the partner purchases barley, or he gives him money to purchase barley and he purchases wheat: if there is a loss, it is suffered by the one who transgressed. If there is a profit, it is split.

Similarly, if a partner entered into partnership with another person using funds belonging to the partnership, if there is a loss, the persons suffers it alone. If there is a profit, it is split. If, however, he entered into a partnership with another person with his own money: if there is a loss, the persons suffers it alone. If there is a profit, he alone receives the profit. If a stipulation was made between the partners, everything is concluded according to that stipulation.


אֶחָד מִן הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁעָבַר וּמָכַר בְּהַקָּפָה אוֹ פֵּרַשׁ בַּיָּם אוֹ הָלַךְ לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר אוֹ שֶׁנָּשָׂא וְנָתַן בִּסְחוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים כָּל פְּחָת שֶׁיָּבוֹא מֵחֲמַת שֶׁעָבַר חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם לְבַדּוֹ וְאִם הָיָה שָׁם שָׂכָר הַשָּׂכָר לָאֶמְצַע כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִתְנוּ בֵּינֵיהֶם בַּשָּׂכָר. לְפִיכָךְ הַנּוֹתֵן מָעוֹת לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּתוֹרַת שֻׁתָּפוּת לִקַּח בָּהֶן חִטִּים לִסְחוֹרָה וְהָלַךְ וְקָנָה שְׂעוֹרִים אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ מָעוֹת לִקְנוֹת שְׂעוֹרִים וְקָנָה חִטִּים. אִם פָּחֲתוּ פָּחֲתוּ לְזֶה שֶׁעָבַר וְאִם הוֹתִירוּ הוֹתִירוּ לָאֶמְצַע. וְכֵן אִם הָלַךְ וְנִשְׁתַּתֵּף עִם אַחֵר בְּמָמוֹן הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת אִם הִפְסִיד הִפְסִיד לְעַצְמוֹ וְאִם נִשְׂתַּכֵּר הַשָּׂכָר לָאֶמְצַע. אֲבָל אִם נִשְׁתַּתֵּף עִם אַחֵר בַּמָּמוֹן עַצְמוֹ אִם פִּחֵת פִּחֵת לְעַצְמוֹ וְאִם הִרְוִיחַ הִרְוִיחַ לְעַצְמוֹ. וְאִם הִתְנוּ בֵּינֵיהֶן הַכּל לְפִי הַתְּנַאי:


When a person gives a colleague money to purchase produce with the profits to be divided in half, the person given the money is permitted to purchase more of that produce for himself. When he sells the produce, he should not sell the two together. Instead, he should sell the produce owned jointly separately, and his own produce separately.

Similarly, he should not purchase wheat for himself and barley for his colleague.Instead, he should purchase wheat for the entire amount, or barley for the entire amount, so that the funds of them both should be equal in case of loss.


הַנּוֹתֵן מָעוֹת לַחֲבֵרוֹ לִקַּח בָּהֶן פֵּרוֹת לְמַחֲצִית שָׂכָר רַשַּׁאי לִקַּח לְעַצְמוֹ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מוֹכֵר לֹא יִמְכֹּר שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּאֶחָד אֶלָּא מוֹכֵר אֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן [וְאֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן]. וְלֹא יִקַּח לְעַצְמוֹ חִטִּים וְלַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׂעוֹרִים אֶלָּא בְּכֻלָּן חִטִּים אוֹ בְּכֻלָּן שְׂעוֹרִים כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מְעוֹת שְׁנֵיהֶם שָׁוִין בַּחֲבָּלָה:


When one of the partners says: "Let's take the merchandise to this and this place, where it is highly priced, and sell it there," the other partner may prevent him from doing so even if the first partner accepts responsibility for any loss by factors beyond his control or depreciation that may occur. The rationale is that the second partner may tell the first: "I do not desire to give you the money that is in my possession and then have to pursue you and bring you to court to expropriate it from you." Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.


אֶחָד מִן הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁאָמַר נוֹלִיךְ הַסְּחוֹרָה לְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהִיא בְּיֹקֶר וְנִמְכֹּר שָׁם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו כָּל אֹנֶס אוֹ כָּל פְּחָת שֶׁיָּבוֹא הֲרֵי חֲבֵרוֹ מְעַכֵּב עָלָיו שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵין רְצוֹנִי שֶׁאֶתֵּן מָעוֹת שֶׁבְּיָדִי וְאֶהְיֶה רוֹדֵף אַחֲרֶיךָ לַדִּין לְהוֹצִיא מִמְּךָ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:


If one of the partners desires to let the produce age until the time when it is known to sell that produce, his colleague cannot prevent him from doing so. If there is no set time to sell this type of produce, his colleague can prevent him from aging the produce.


אֶחָד מִן הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁבָּא לְיַשֵּׁן אֶת הַפֵּרוֹת עַד זְמַן הַיָּדוּעַ אֵין חֲבֵרוֹ מְעַכֵּב עָלָיו. וְאִם אֵין זְמַן לְאוֹתָן פֵּרוֹת חֲבֵרוֹ מְעַכֵּב עָלָיו:


When partners evaluated their produce, and then established a partnership with them, the laws of ona'ah apply to each of them. If they mixed their produce together without evaluating it, sold it, and then did business with the profits, they should evaluate the worth of the produce at the time the partnership was established, and appraise the profit or the loss accordingly.


שֻׁתָּפִין שֶׁשָּׁמוּ פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בָּהֶן יֵשׁ לָהֶן הוֹנָיָה זֶה עַל זֶה. עֵרְבוּ פֵּרוֹת בְּלֹא שׁוּמָא וּמְכָרוּם וְנָשְׂאוּ וְנָתְנוּ בִּדְמֵיהֶן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְחַשְּׁבִין אֶת הַפֵּרוֹת כַּמָּה הָיוּ שָׁוִין בְּעֵת שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתְּפוּ וּמְחַשְּׁבִין אֶת הַשָּׂכָר אוֹ הַהֶפְסֵד:


When custom collectors waived a fee from partners, each is granted an equal share. If the collectors say: "We waived the fee because of so and so," he alone is granted the value of the waiver.

The following rules apply when partners were traveling on the road and were attacked by thieves, who sought to steal the merchandise carried by the caravan.If one of the partners saved the goods from being taken, all the partners receive an equal share in what he saved. If he says: "I am saving it for myself," he has saved it for himself alone.


שֻׁתָּפִין שֶׁמָּחֲלוּ לָהֶם מוֹכְסִין מָחֲלוּ לָאֶמְצַע. וְאִם אָמְרוּ מִשּׁוּם פְּלוֹנִי מָחַלְנוּ מַה שֶּׁמָּחֲלוּ מָחֲלוּ לוֹ. הָיוּ בָּאִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְעָמְדוּ עֲלֵיהֶן לִסְטִים וְגָזְלוּ אֶת הַשַּׁיָּרָא וְהִצִּיל אֶחָד מִן הַשֻּׁתָּפִין הִצִּיל לָאֶמְצַע (אֲפִלּוּ אֵין יְכוֹלִים חֲבֵרָיו לְהַצִּיל דְּלָא פְּלַג כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אָמַר כְּלוּם). וְאִם אָמַר לְעַצְמִי אֲנִי מַצִּיל (אִם יְכוֹלִים לְהַצִּיל הִצִּיל עַד כְּדֵי חֶלְקוֹ לְעַצְמוֹ וְהַיּוֹתֵר שֶׁלָּהֶם וְאִם אֵין יְכוֹלִין לְהַצִּיל) הִצִּיל לְעַצְמוֹ:


When property is known to belong to the partnership, it is assumed that both partners have a share in its ownership throughout the entire duration of the partnership. This applies even though the property was located in the domain of only one of the partners. The partner in whose domain it is located may not claim that he purchased it from the other partner, or that he gave it to him as a present. In such an instance, we do not follow the principle: When a person desires to expropriate property from a colleague the burden of proof is on him. Instead, the property is assumed to belong to both partners unless one of them brings proof otherwise.


דָּבָר הַיָּדוּעַ לִשְׁנֵי שֻׁתָּפִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בִּרְשׁוּת אֶחָד מֵהֶן אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מֵחֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁנִי כָּל יְמֵי הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן שֶׁלְּקָחוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה וְנֹאמַר לָאַחֵר שֶׁהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הוּא בְּחֶזְקַת שְׁנֵיהֶם עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא הָאַחֵר רְאָיָה:


When one of the partners desires to dissolve the partnership without the knowledge of his partner, he should divide the assets in the presence of three people. They may even be unlearned people, provided they are trustworthy and able to evaluate property. If a partner divides the assets in the presence of fewer than three people, his actions are of no consequence.

When does the above apply? When he divides produce. If, however, the partnership's assets were money, the money is considered as if it had been already divided. The partner may therefore divide the money outside the presence of a court and then deposit his colleague's share with the court for safe-keeping.

When does the above apply? When all the money is of one currency and of equal value. If, however, some coins are new and others old - and needless to say if some are considered desirable and others considered undesirable - the money is also considered as produce and should not be divided outside the presence of a court of three.


אֶחָד מִן הַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁבָּא לַחֲלֹק שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת חֲבֵרוֹ חוֹלֵק בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵן הֶדְיוֹטוֹת וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהוּ נֶאֱמָנִין וְיוֹדְעִין בְּשׁוּמָא. וְאִם חָלַק לָהּ בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁחָלְקוּ פֵּרוֹת. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מָעוֹת הַמָּעוֹת כַּחֲלוּקִים הֵם וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְחַלֵּק שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין וּמַנִּיחַ חֵלֶק חֲבֵרוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיוּ הַמָּעוֹת כֻּלָּן מַטְבֵּעַ אֶחָד וְשָׁוִין. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מִקְצָתָן חֲדָשִׁים וּמִקְצָתָן יְשָׁנִים וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם הָיוּ מִקְצָתָן יָפוֹת וּמִקְצָתָן רָעוֹת הֲרֵי הֵן כְּפֵרוֹת וְאֵין חוֹלְקִין אוֹתָם אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין:


It is forbidden for a person to enter into partnership with a gentile, lest his colleague be obligated to take an oath to him and he swear in the name of his false deity.

We have already explained in the appropriate place that it is forbidden to do business with produce that grows in the Sabbatical year, nor with firstborn animals, nor with animals that are trefah, nor with meat from dead animals, nor with produce that is terumah, nor with crawling or teeming animals. If a person transgresses and invests money belonging to a partnership in these, the profit should be divided among the partners. It appears to me that if he loses, he must bear the loss himself. This ruling is granted because he transgressed.


אָסוּר לְהִשְׁתַּתֵּף עִם עַכּוּ''ם שֶׁמָּא יִתְחַיֵּב לוֹ חֲבֵרוֹ שְׁבוּעָה וְיַשְׁבִּיעוֹ בְּיִרְאָתוֹ. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁאָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת סְחוֹרָה בְּפֵרוֹת שְׁבִיעִית [וְלֹא בִּבְכוֹרוֹת] וְלֹא בִּטְרֵפוֹת וְלֹא בִּנְבֵלוֹת וְלֹא בִּתְרוּמוֹת וְלֹא בִּשְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים. וְאִם עָבַר וְעָשָׂה הַשָּׂכָר לָאֶמְצַע. וְנִרְאֶה לִי שֶׁאִם הִפְסִיד הִפְסִיד לְעַצְמוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעָבַר:


When one of the members of a partnership or an investment agreement dies, the partnership or the investment agreement is nullified. This applies even if the agreement was originally made for a specific time. The rationale is that the money has already been transferred to the domain of the heirs. The Geonim ruled in accordance with this decision.


אֶחָד מִן הַשֻּׁתָּפִין אוֹ מִן הַמִּתְעַסְּקִין שֶׁמֵּת בָּטְלָה הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת אוֹ הָעֵסֶק אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִתְנוּ לִזְמַן קָבוּעַ שֶׁכְּבָר יָצָא הַמָּמוֹן לִרְשׁוּת הַיּוֹרְשִׁים. וְכָזֶה הוֹרוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים:

Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Six


When two partners both do business with the money belonging to the partnership, even if the money was originally invested by only one of them, their relationship is referred to as a partnership. If they lose or they profit, the loss or the profit is divided equally, or they may stipulate any other division of the profits or the losses, as we have explained.

If, however, only one of the partners was doing business with the money belonging to the partnership, even if the money was originally invested by both of them, this type of partnership is called an esek (an investment agreement). The person who does the buying and selling is called an administrator, for he alone is the one involved in the transactions. And the partner who is not involved in the business dealings is referred to as the investor.


שְׁנַּיִם שֶׁהֵן נוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין בְּמָמוֹן הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַמָּמוֹן שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ נִקְרֵאת שֻׁתָּפוּת וְאִם פָּחֲתוּ אוֹ הוֹתִירוּ הֲרֵי הוּא לָאֶמְצַע. וְיֵשׁ לָהֶם לְהַתְנוֹת בַּשָּׂכָר וּבַהֶפְסֵד כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הָאֶחָד בִּלְבַד הוּא שֶׁנּוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בְּמָמוֹן הַשִּׁתּוּף אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַמָּמוֹן מִשֶּׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם הֲרֵי זוֹ הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת נִקְרֵאת עֵסֶק וְזֶה הַנּוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן נִקְרָא מִתְעַסֵּק שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא לְבַדּוֹ מִתְעַסֵּק בְּמַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן וְשֻׁתָּפוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן נִקְרָא בַּעַל הַמָּעוֹת:


Our Sages ordained that whenever a person entrusts money to a colleague to use for business purposes, half of the money should be considered a loan. The administrator is responsible for this money even if it is destroyed by forces beyond his control. The second half is considered an entrusted object, and the investor is responsible for it. If the half that is considered an entrusted article is stolen or lost, the administrator is not liable to pay. Therefore, any profit that is earned by this half of the investment will belong to the investor.

According to this construct, the profit or the loss of the entire investment should not be equally divided between the investor and the administrator. For if this were the case, the investor would receive a profit for the half of his money that is an entrusted object without doing anything for it. The administrator is working for the sake of the half of the investment that was an entrusted article, because of the money that he was lent. Thus, this brings the two to avak ribit, the shade of interest.

What should be done if they desire that the profit or the loss be equally shared? The investor should pay the administrator the wages to be paid to an unemployed laborer of the profession in which he was involved. If the administrator has any other occupation in which he is involved aside from caring for this investment, the investor does not have to pay him a daily wage. Instead, even if he paid him only one dinar for the entire time of the partnership, this is sufficient. If the partnership lost or gained, the loss or profit should be divided equally.

Similarly, if the investor told the administrator: "In addition to the portion that is divided, you will receive one third or one tenth of the profit," since he has another occupation, it is permitted. If there is a loss, the loss is divided equally.

If the administrator is a sharecropper working the fields of the investor, and he has another business, he is not required to pay him any other wage at all. For a sharecropper is obligated to take care of the interests of the owner of the field.


תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁכָּל הַנּוֹתֵן מָעוֹת לַחֲבֵרוֹ לְהִתְעַסֵּק בָּהֶן יִהְיֶה חֲצִי הַמָּמוֹן בְּתוֹרַת הַלְוָאָה וַהֲרֵי הַמִּתְעַסֵּק חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָבַד בְּאֹנֶס וְהַחֵצִי הָאַחֵר בְּתוֹרַת פִּקָּדוֹן וַהֲרֵי הוּא בְּאַחֲרָיוּת בַּעַל הַמָּעוֹת. וְאִם נִגְנַב אוֹ אָבַד הַחֵצִי שֶׁל פִּקָּדוֹן אֵין הַמִּתְעַסֵּק חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם וּלְפִיכָךְ יִהְיֶה שְׂכַר זוֹ הַחֵצִי אִם הִרְוִיחַ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַמָּעוֹת. וּלְפִי תַּקָּנָה זוֹ אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַשָּׂכָר אוֹ הַהֶפְסֵד שֶׁל כָּל הַמָּמוֹן לָאֶמְצַע בְּשָׁוֶה שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן נִמְצָא בַּעַל הַמָּמוֹן נוֹטֵל שְׂכַר חֲצִי מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁהֵן פִּקָּדוֹן וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה כְּלוּם אֶלָּא זֶה הַמִּתְעַסֵּק טוֹרֵחַ לוֹ בַּחֲצִי שֶׁל פִּקָּדוֹן מִפְּנֵי מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁהִלְוָהוּ וְנִמְצָא בָּאִין לִידֵי אֲבַק רִבִּית. וְהֵיאַךְ יַעֲשׂוּ אִם רוֹצֶה לִהְיוֹת הַשָּׂכָר אוֹ הַהֶפְסֵד לָאֶמְצַע בְּשָׁוֶה יִתֵּן לַמִּתְעַסֵּק שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁבְּכָל יוֹם וְיוֹם מִימֵי הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת כְּפוֹעֵל בָּטֵל שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ מְלָאכָה שֶׁבָּטֵל מִמֶּנָּה. וְאִם הָיָה לוֹ עֵסֶק אַחֵר כָּל שֶׁהוּא לְהִתְעַסֵּק בּוֹ עִם מְעוֹתָיו שֶׁל זֶה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר שֶׁל כָּל יוֹם וְיוֹם אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ הֶעֱלָה לוֹ דִּינָר בְּכָל יְמֵי הַשֻּׁתָּפוּת דַּיּוֹ וְאִם פָּחֲתוּ אוֹ הוֹתִירוּ יִהְיֶה לָאֶמְצַע בְּשָׁוֶה. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר לוֹ כָּל הָרֶוַח יִהְיֶה לְךָ שְׁלִישׁוֹ אוֹ עֲשִׂירִיתוֹ בִּשְׂכָרְךָ הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לוֹ עֵסֶק אַחֵר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְאִם הִפְסִידוּ יַפְסִיד מֶחֱצָה. וְאִם הָיָה זֶה הַמִּתְעַסֵּק אֲרִיסוֹ וְהָיָה לוֹ עֵסֶק אַחֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר אַחֵר כְּלָל שֶׁהָאָרִיס מְשֻׁעְבָּד הוּא לְבַעַל הַשָּׂדֶה:


Our Sages also ordained that whenever a person gives a colleague money to use for a business and the investor did not desire to pay the administrator a wage, and they did not make any stipulation with regard to the division of the profits and the losses, the profit or the loss should be divided as follows: The wage of the administrator for handling the half of the investment that is considered an entrusted article is one third of the profit of that half, which is one sixth of the profit of the entire investment.

Therefore, if a profit is made, the administrator should receive two thirds of the profit: half of the profit stemming from the half of the investment that was a loan, and the sixth of the profit that is his wages for handling the money considered as an entrusted article. Thus, he receives two thirds of the profit.

If there is a loss, the administrator should bear a third of the loss. This figure is reached as follows: He is liable for half the loss because of the half [of the original investment that was a loan. He deserves a sixth of the loss as his wage for handling the half of the investment that was considered an entrusted article. Thus, his responsibility is one third of the loss. The investor must bear two thirds of the loss.


וְעוֹד תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁכָּל הַנּוֹתֵן מָעוֹת לַחֲבֵרוֹ לְהִתְעַסֵּק בָּהֶן וּפָחֲתוּ אוֹ הוֹתִירוּ וְלֹא רָצָה לִתֵּן לוֹ שְׂכַר עֲמָלוֹ בְּכָל יוֹם וְלֹא הִתְנוּ בֵּינֵיהֶן שׁוּם תְּנַאי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה שְׂכַר הַמִּתְעַסֵּק בְּאוֹתוֹ חֲצִי שֶׁל פִּקָּדוֹן שְׁלִישׁ רֶוַח הַפִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁהוּא שְׁתוּת רֶוַח כָּל הַמָּמוֹן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הִרְוִיחוּ יִטּל הַמִּתְעַסֵּק שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישֵׁי הָרֶוַח חֲצִי הָרֶוַח שֶׁל חֲצִי הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁהֵן מִלְוֶה וּשְׁתוּת הָרֶוַח בְּשָׂכָר שֶׁנִּתְעַסֵּק בַּפִּקָּדוֹן. נִמְצָא הַכּל שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישֵׁי הָרֶוַח. וְיִטּל בַּעַל הַמָּעוֹת שְׁלִישׁ הָרֶוַח. וְאִם פָּחֲתוּ יַפְסִיד הַמִּתְעַסֵּק שְׁלִישׁ הַפְּחָת שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב בַּחֲצִי הַפְּחָת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲצִי הַמָּעוֹת מִלְוֶה וְיֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁתוּת בִּשְׂכָרוֹ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַחֵצִי שֶׁל פִּקָּדוֹן וְנִמְצָא שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר עָלָיו מִן הַפְּחָת שְׁלִישׁוֹ וּבַעַל הַמָּעוֹת יַפְסִיד שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישֵׁי הַפְּחָת:


There is an opinion that makes an error, maintaining that when a person makes an investment without making any stipulations with regard to the division of profits and losses, they should be divided as follows: If there is a profit, the administrator should receive half, but if there is a loss, he must bear only a third of the loss. This is not the rule unless they made an explicit stipulation to this effect.

Similarly, if they stipulated that if there be a loss the administrator should suffer half the loss, and if there be a profit he should be granted two thirds of the profit, this is permitted. Similarly, if they stipulated that if there be a profit, the administrator should receive one ninth and if there be a loss, he should lose one tenth, this stipulation is binding. The rationale is that they made a stipulation that the administrator should receive a greater share of the profit than his share of the loss, and he is granted this additional amount because of his work.

My teachers ruled that such a conditional agreement is not effective unless the administrator has another occupation. If he does not have another occupation, the profit that the administrator can receive must be at least a sixth more than the loss he could suffer, as we have explained. They maintain that a prohibition is involved, and the stipulation cannot supersede it. This ruling does not appear correct to me.


יֵשׁ מִי שֶׁטּוֹעֶה וְאוֹמֵר שֶׁהַנּוֹתֵן עֵסֶק סְתָם אִם יִהְיֶה שָׁם שָׂכָר יִטּל הַמִּתְעַסֵּק חֶצְיוֹ וְאִם הָיָה שָׁם הֶפְסֵד יַפְסִיד שְׁלִישׁ. וְאֵין הַדָּבָר כֵּן אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִתְנוּ עַל דָּבָר זֶה בְּפֵרוּשׁ. וְכֵן אִם הִתְנוּ שֶׁיַּפְסִיד הַמִּתְעַסֵּק מֶחֱצָה וְאִם יִהְיֶה שָׁם שָׂכָר יִטּל שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישֵׁי הָרֶוַח הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְכֵן אִם הִתְנוּ שֶׁאִם יִהְיֶה שָׁם שָׂכָר יִטּל הַמִּתְעַסֵּק תְּשִׁיעִיתוֹ וְאִם יִהְיֶה שָׁם הֶפְסֵד יַפְסִיד עֲשִׂירִיתוֹ הוֹאִיל וְהִתְנוּ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה רֶוַח הַמִּתְעַסֵּק יוֹתֵר עַל הֶפְסֵדוֹ תְּנָאוֹ קַיָּם וְתוֹסֶפֶת זוֹ כְּנֶגֶד עֲמָלוֹ. וְרַבּוֹתַי הוֹרוּ שֶׁאֵין הַתְּנַאי זֶה מוֹעִיל אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה לַמִּתְעַסֵּק עֵסֶק אַחֵר. אֲבָל אִם אֵין לוֹ עֵסֶק אַחֵר צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא שְׂכַר הַמִּתְעַסֵּק יֶתֶר עַל הֶפְסֵדוֹ בִּשְׁתוּת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁזֶּה דָּבָר אָסוּר הוּא וְאֵין הַתְּנַאי מוֹעִיל בּוֹ. וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה לִי זֶה:


My teachers ruled that if a stipulation was made that the administrator should receive three fourths of the profit and the investor only one portion, only one fourth of the money will be considered an entrusted article and three fourths will be considered a loan. Therefore, if there is a loss, the administrator should bear three fourths of the loss, minus a twelfth. The investor should suffer a fourth of the loss plus a twelfth - i.e., one third of the entire loss.

What is implied? The investor gave the administrator 100 dinarim according to this stipulation, and they lost 24 dinarim, the investor should lose eight, and the administrator sixteen.

These ratios should be followed at all times. Whenever there is a profit, the investor should receive the share of the profit that was stipulated. If there is a loss, he should bear that same proportion of the loss, but should be given one third of the investor's portion. Thus, according to this approach, if it was agreed that the administrator would receive a fourth of the profits, he does not lose anything if there is a loss. For in place of the fourth of the loss that he is required to bear, he is due one third of the portion of the owner - i.e., one fourth. And so, one cancels out the other.

These authorities maintain that similar principles apply if a stipulation was made regarding losses without mentioning profits. If a loss was incurred, the administrator must bear the loss as stipulated. If a profit was made, the administrator should receive the share of the loss that he was supposed to bear, plus one third of the portion to be received by the investor.

What is implied? If a stipulation was made that in the event of a loss, the administrator should bear one fourth of the loss. If there is a loss, he must pay the investor one fourth. If there is a profit, the administrator receives half the profit.

Although the rules that they issued are words of logic, if these principles are followed, it is possible for the administrator to cause a loss and yet receive profit.

What is implied? It was stipulated that the administrator should receive one seventh of the profit. A loss was incurred. Thus, the administrator should receive as a wage one seventh in addition to this loss.

How is this illustrated? They suffered a loss of seven dinarim. The administrator will tell the investor: "I owe you one dinar according to our stipulation, but you owe me two dinarim, which is one third of the portion of the entrusted article." Thus, the investor is obligated to pay him a dinar as wages for losing seven dinarim. And if he had lost fourteen dinarim, the investor would have to pay him two dinarim as wages. This is an unfathomable matter, which cannot be accepted by logic. To me, it appears like a dream.

Instead, the proper approach and the true law appears to me as follows: If there is a loss, the administrator should bear as a loss two thirds of the percentage he would receive if there were a profit. Similarly, if they made a stipulation concerning a loss and they profited, the administrator should receive the portion he would lose in the event of a loss, plus a third of the share of his colleague. Thus, according to this approach, if a stipulation was made that the administrator should receive one fourth of the profit and he incurred a loss, he should pay one sixth of the loss. And if a stipulation was made that he should lose a fourth and he profited, he should receive a half. Following this approach will not lead to unthinkable results, and there will be expressed a law that is just.


הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁאִם הִתְנוּ שֶׁיִּטּל הַמִּתְעַסֵּק שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים מֵהַשָּׂכָר וּבַעַל הַמָּעוֹת רְבִיעַ הַשָּׂכָר נִמְצָא רְבִיעַ הַמָּעוֹת בִּלְבַד בְּתוֹרַת פִּקָּדוֹן וּשְׁלֹשָׁה רְבִיעִים בְּתוֹרַת הַלְוָאָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה שָׁם הֶפְסֵד יַפְסִיד הַמִּתְעַסֵּק שְׁלֹשָׁה רְבִיעֵי הֶפְסֵד פָּחוֹת שְׁלִישׁ הָרְבִיעַ וְיַפְסִיד בַּעַל הַמָּעוֹת רְבִיעַ וּשְׁלִישׁ רְבִיעַ שֶׁהוּא שְׁלִישׁ כָּל הַהֶפְסֵד. כֵּיצַד. נָתַן לוֹ מֵאָה דִּינָרִים עַל תְּנַאי זֶה וְחָסְרוּ אַרְבָּעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים בַּעַל הַמָּעוֹת מַפְסִיד שְׁמֹנָה וְהַמִּתְעַסֵּק מְשַׁלֵּם שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ לְעוֹלָם כָּל חֵלֶק שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְבַעַל הַמָּעוֹת בַּשָּׂכָר אִם יִהְיֶה שָׁם רֶוַח נוֹטֵל כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִתְנוּ וְאִם יִהְיֶה שָׁם הֶפְסֵד יַפְסִיד אוֹתוֹ הַחֵלֶק וְתוֹסֶפֶת שְׁלִישׁוֹ. נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד לְפִי מִדָּה זוֹ שֶׁאִם הִתְנוּ שֶׁיִּטּל הַמִּתְעַסֵּק רְבִיעַ הַשָּׂכָר אִם פָּחַת לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם הַמִּתְעַסֵּק כְּלוּם שֶׁהֲרֵי רְבִיעַ הַהֶפְסֵד שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם מִפְּנֵי הַמִּלְוֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ כְּנֶגְדּוֹ שְׁלִישׁ מַה שֶּׁיִּטּל בַּעַל הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁהוּא רְבִיעַ וְנִמְצָא זֶה כְּנֶגֶד זֶה. וְכֵן אִם הִתְנוּ עַל הַפְּחָת וְלֹא הִזְכִּירוּ הָרֶוַח אִם פָּחֲתוּ פִּחֵת הַמִּתְעַסֵּק כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁהִתְנוּ וְאִם הוֹסִיפוּ נוֹטֵל הַמִּתְעַסֵּק כְּמוֹ אוֹתוֹ הַחֵלֶק שֶׁהָיָה מַפְסִיד וְתוֹסֶפֶת שְׁלִישׁ מַה שֶּׁנָּטַל בַּעַל הַמָּעוֹת. כֵּיצַד. הִתְנוּ שֶׁאִם הָיָה שָׁם הֶפְסֵד יִפְחֹת הַמִּתְעַסֵּק רְבִיעַ וְהִפְחִיתוּ מְשַׁלֵּם רְבִיעַ הַפְּחָת וְאִם הוֹתִירוּ נוֹטֵל מֶחֱצָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁהוֹרוּ דִּבְרֵי טַעַם הֵם אִם תֵּלֵךְ עַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ שֶׁמָּא הַמִּתְעַסֵּק אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּפְחֹת וְיִטּל שָׂכָר. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁיִּטּל הַמִּתְעַסֵּק אֶחָד מִשִּׁבְעָה בַּשָּׂכָר וּפָחֲתוּ נִמְצָא נוֹטֵל הַמִּתְעַסֵּק אֶחָד מִשִּׁבְעָה יָתֵר עַל זֶה הַהֶפְסֵד. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁפָּחֲתוּ שִׁבְעָה דִּינָרִים הֲרֵי הַמִּתְעַסֵּק אוֹמֵר לוֹ אֲנִי חַיָּב לְךָ דִּינָר אֶחָד כְּפִי הַתְּנַאי וְאַתָּה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם לִי שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵן שְׁלִישׁ חֵלֶק הַפִּקָּדוֹן נִמְצָא בַּעַל הַמָּעוֹת חַיָּב לִתֵּן לוֹ דִּינָר בִּשְׂכָר שֶׁהִפְסִיד שִׁבְעָה וְאִלּוּ הִפְסִיד אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר הָיָה חַיָּב בַּעַל הַמָּעוֹת לִתֵּן לוֹ שְׁנֵי דִּינָרִין וְזֶה תֵּימָה גָּדוֹל וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין הַדַּעַת סוֹבֶלֶת אוֹתוֹ וְאֵין זֶה אֶצְלִי אֶלָּא כְּמוֹ דִּבְרֵי הַחֲלוֹם. אֲבָל הַדֶּרֶךְ וְהַדִּין הָאֱמֶת שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה לִי שֶׁכָּל שֶׁיַּרְוִיחַ הַמִּתְעַסֵּק אִם יִהְיֶה שָׁם הֶפְסֵד יַפְסִיד שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישֵׁי הַחֵלֶק שֶׁהָיָה מַרְוִיחַ וְכֵן אִם הִתְנוּ עַל הַהֶפְסֵד וְהִרְוִיחוּ יִטּל כְּמוֹ אוֹתוֹ הַחֵלֶק שֶׁהָיָה מַפְסִיד וְתוֹסֶפֶת שְׁלִישׁ חֵלֶק חֲבֵרוֹ. נִמְצֵאתָ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לְפִי מִדָּה זוֹ שֶׁאִם הִתְנוּ שֶׁיִּטּל הַמִּתְעַסֵּק רְבִיעַ הַשָּׂכָר וְהִפְסִיד הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁתוּת וְאִם הִתְנוּ שֶׁיַּפְסִיד רְבִיעַ וְהִרְוִיחַ נוֹטֵל מֶחֱצָה. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה לֹא תִּמְצָא תֵּימָה וְיֵצֵא הַדִּין בְּקַו הַצֶּדֶק:

Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter Seven


When a person gives money to a colleague to use for business purposes without making any stipulation, or explicitly states that they will share the profit and the losses equally, and the money is lost, there is an opinion that states that if only a portion of the money is lost, the administrator should pay the investor one third, as we have explained. It appears to me, however, that the administrator should pay the half that is a loan. Our Sages' statement that he should bear one third of the loss applies when the loss is not great enough for the investor to receive less than half of his money.

What is implied? Reuven gave Shimon 120 dinarim to invest in a business. Shimon did business with the money and lost ninety dinarim. Shimon should pay 30. Thus, Reuven receives 60.

If, however, Shimon lost 105 dinarim, we do not say that Shimon must pay only 35 dinarim. For if so, Reuven will receive only 50, and Reuven should never receive less than 60.

For this reason, if a legal document recording an investment contract involving the deceased father of orphans was presented against them, the possessor of the contract must take an oath. Afterwards, he is entitled to collect the half that is a loan. This applies even though we always advance arguments in support of an heir. Thus, we can derive from this that an investor never receives less than half.

Why do I not say that the extent of the loss the administrator must bear should be reduced in consideration of his wage for taking care of the portion of the investment considered as an entrusted article? Because the entire half considered as an entrusted article was lost, and no portion remained. Hence, it is not appropriate to say that if he does not receive a wage, his efforts will appear as interest. For all that he receives is the portion that he gave as a loan.

Similarly, if it is stipulated that the administrator would receive one fourth of the profit, in the event of the loss of the entire investment, he must pay the entire fourth that was given to him as a loan. If, however, enough of the money remains so that if the administrator adds one sixth of the loss to the small portion that remains, the investor would receive a fourth or more of his original investment, the administrator is required to pay only one sixth of the loss, because of the reasons we have explained.


הַנּוֹתֵן מָעוֹת לַחֲבֵרוֹ סְתָם לְהִתְעַסֵּק בָּהֶן אוֹ שֶׁהִתְנוּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַשָּׂכָר וְהַהֶפְסֵד בֵּינֵיהֶם בְּשָׁוֶה וְנֶאֱבַד הַמָּמוֹן יֵשׁ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּם הַמִּתְעַסֵּק שְׁלִישׁ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ אִם אָבַד מִקְצָת הַמָּמוֹן. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם מֶחֱצָה שֶׁהוּא בְּתוֹרַת מִלְוֶה וְזֶה שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁלִישׁ בַּהֶפְסֵד בְּשֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ הַהֶפְסֵד לִטּל בַּעַל הַמָּעוֹת פָּחוֹת מֵחֲצִי מָמוֹנוֹ. כֵּיצַד. רְאוּבֵן שֶׁנָּתַן לְשִׁמְעוֹן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים דִּינָר וְנָשָׂא וְנָתַן וּפָחַת תִּשְׁעִים הֲרֵי שִׁמְעוֹן מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁלֹשִׁים וְנִמְצָא רְאוּבֵן נוֹטֵל שִׁשִּׁים. אֲבָל פָּחַת שִׁמְעוֹן מֵאָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה אֵין אוֹמְרִים יַפְסִיד שִׁמְעוֹן חֲמִשָּׁה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן נִמְצָא רְאוּבֵן נוֹטֵל חֲמִשִּׁים וּלְעוֹלָם לֹא יִטּל רְאוּבֵן פָּחוֹת מִשִּׁשִּׁים. לְפִיכָךְ שְׁטַר עֵסֶק הַיּוֹצֵא עַל הַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁהָיָה אֲבִיהֶן מִתְעַסֵּק בּוֹ נִשְׁבָּע בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר וְגוֹבֶה מֶחֱצָה שֶׁהוּא בְּתוֹרַת מִלְוֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלְּעוֹלָם טוֹעֲנִין לַיּוֹרֵשׁ. הִנֵּה לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל לְעוֹלָם פָּחוֹת מִמֶּחֱצָה. וְלָמָּה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁאֵין פּוֹחֲתִין לוֹ כָּאן כְּנֶגֶד שְׂכָרוֹ שֶׁנִּתְעַסֵּק בְּפִקָּדוֹן. שֶׁהֲרֵי אָבַד כָּל הַחֵצִי שֶׁל פִּקָּדוֹן וְלֹא נִשְׁאַר כָּאן פִּקָּדוֹן כְּלָל שֶׁנֹּאמַר אִם לֹא יִטּל שְׂכָרוֹ יֵרָאֶה כְּרִבִּית שֶׁהֲרֵי חֲצִי הַמִּלְוֶה בִּלְבַד נוֹטֵל. וְכֵן אִם הִתְנוּ שֶׁיִּטּל הַמִּתְעַסֵּק רְבִיעַ הַשָּׂכָר וְאָבַד הַמָּמוֹן כֻּלּוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם הָרְבִיעַ כֻּלּוֹ שֶׁהוּא בְּתוֹרַת מִלְוֶה אֲבָל אִם נִשְׁאַר מִן הַמָּמוֹן מְעַט כְּדֵי שֶׁאִם תוֹסִיף עַל אוֹתוֹ הַמְעַט שְׁתוּת הַהֶפְסֵד שֶׁפְּחָתוֹ יָבוֹא הַכּל רְבִיעַ הַמָּמוֹן אוֹ יֶתֶר הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁתוּת בִּלְבַד מִן הַטַּעַם שֶׁכְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ:


When an administrator loses money and then labors until he profits, he cannot tell the investor: "Let us first calculate the loss that we suffered originally, of which you will bear two thirds. And then we will calculate the profit that we accrued at the end, of which you will receive only a third." Instead, we calculate only the profit or the loss that was ultimately arrived at. And the administrator receives only a share of the profit that he gained beyond the principal.


הַמִּתְעַסֵּק שֶׁהִפְסִיד וְחָזַר וְטָרַח עַד שֶׁהִרְוִיחַ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לְבַעַל הַמָּעוֹת בּוֹא וְנַחְשֹׁב הַהֶפְסֵד שֶׁהִפְסַדְנוּ תְּחִלָּה וְתַפְסִיד שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישִׁים וְנַחְשֹׁב הָרֶוַח שֶׁהִרְוַחְנוּ בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וְתִטּל שְׁלִישׁ אֶלָּא מְחַשֵּׁב בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה בִּלְבַד עַל הָרֶוַח אוֹ עַל הַהֶפְסֵד וְאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא בַּרֶוַח שֶׁהוֹסִיף עַל הַקֶּרֶן:


When an investor gives an administrator 200 curtains for 200 dinarim in an iska agreement, and composes two separate legal documents concerning the partnership, the administrator may calculate each legal document as a separate investment. The investor caused himself a loss.

If he gave him 100 curtains for 100 dinarim and then gave him another investment of 100 barrels of wine for 100 dinarim, but wrote one investment contract for 200 dinarim, they must consider it a single contract. The administrator caused himself a loss.

What is implied? If he sold the 100 curtains for 130 dinarim and the hundred barrels for 70, the investor receives the entire amount, because one contract was composed, and the administrator did not make any profit. If, however, he had left them as two separate investments as they originally were, the administrator would have earned a profit of 20 dinarim in the deal involving the cloth, and would have lost 10 in the deal involving the barrels. Thus, he would have earned a total profit of 10 dinarim. The same principles apply in all analogous situations.


נָתַן לוֹ מָאתַיִם יְרִיעוֹת בְּמָאתַיִם דִּינָרִים בְּעֵסֶק וּכְתָבָן שְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת מֵאָה בְּכָל שְׁטָר מְחַשֵּׁב לוֹ עַל כָּל שְׁטָר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וּבַעַל הַמָּעוֹת הוּא שֶׁהִפְסִיד עַל עַצְמוֹ. נָתַן לוֹ מֵאָה יְרִיעוֹת בְּמֵאָה דִּינָרִים וְחָזַר וְנָתַן לוֹ בָּעֵסֶק אַחֵר מֵאָה חָבִיּוֹת שֶׁל יַיִן בְּמֵאָה דִּינָרִין וְכָתַב לוֹ שְׁטַר עֵסֶק בְּמָאתַיִם דִּינָרִין אֵינוֹ מְחַשֵּׁב לוֹ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר אֶחָד, הוּא שֶׁהִפְסִיד עַל עַצְמוֹ. כֵּיצַד. שֶׁאִם מָכַר הַמֵּאָה יְרִיעוֹת בְּמֵאָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְהַמֵּאָה הֶחָבִיּוֹת בְּשִׁבְעִים בַּעַל הַמָּעוֹת נוֹטֵל הַכּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁטָר אֶחָד הֲרֵי הַכּל מָאתַיִם וְלֹא הִרְוִיחַ כְּלוּם. אֲבָל אִלּוּ הִנִּיחָם שְׁנֵי עֲסָקִים כְּשֶׁהָיוּ הָיָה מַרְוִיחַ הַמִּתְעַסֵּק בְּחֶלְקוֹ בַּבְּגָדִים עֶשְׂרִים וּמַפְסִיד בְּחֶלְקוֹ בָּחָבִיּוֹת עֲשָׂרָה וְהָיָה נוֹטֵל עֲשָׂרָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:


An administrator may not divide the money or the merchandise he was entrusted, saying; "I will take the half that I was given as a loan for myself and do business with it, and I will place the half that is considered an entrusted object in the court for safekeeping." For he was given this money solely with the intent that he do business with the entire amount. If he dissolved the investment contract and did the above, even if he entrusted the money to the nation's highest court, his actions are of no consequence. The profit or the loss should be divided among them according to the principles we have explained.


אֵין הַמִּתְעַסֵּק יָכוֹל לַחֲלֹק הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁל עֵסֶק אוֹ סְחוֹרָה וְלוֹמַר אֶטּל אֶת הַחֵצִי שֶׁבְּתוֹרַת מִלְוֶה לְעַצְמִי וְאֶשָּׂא וְאֶתֵּן בּוֹ וְאַנִּיחַ הַחֵצִי שֶׁבְּתוֹרַת פִּקָּדוֹן בְּבֵית דִּין. שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן לוֹ מָמוֹן זֶה אֶלָּא לְהִתְעַסֵּק בְּכֻלּוֹ. וְאִם חָלַק וְעָשָׂה זֶה אֲפִלּוּ בְּבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם אֶלָּא הַשָּׂכָר אוֹ הַהֶפְסֵד בֵּינֵיהֶן עַל אוֹתָן הַדְּרָכִים שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:


When an administrator gives other people a present from movable property belonging to the investment agreement or from money belonging to the investment, and the investor brings clear proof that this movable property or this money belongs to the investment, it may be expropriated from the recipient. Even if the recipient changed it, sold it or gave it away as a present to others, or destroyed it, the administrator is obligated to pay for it, provided the investor brings definite proof that the recipient was given property or funds belonging to the investment.

We have already explained that if the administrator dies, the investor may take an oath and collect half of the money invested. If there are witnesses who testify that merchandise was purchased with the money of the investment, the investor may take it without taking an oath. Similarly, no other creditors or wives of the administrator may expropriate anything from these goods unless there was a profit. For the portion of the profit belonging to the deceased belongs to his heirs, and from that portion, his creditors and wives may expropriate money that is due them.


הַמִּתְעַסֵּק שֶׁנָּתַן מַתָּנָה לַאֲחֵרִים מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁל עֵסֶק אוֹ מִמְּעוֹת הָעֵסֶק וְהֵבִיא בַּעַל הַמָּעוֹת רְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה שֶׁאֵלּוּ הַמְּטַלְטְלִין אוֹ הַמָּעוֹת מִשֶּׁל עֵסֶק הֵן מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיָּדוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ שִׁנָּה הַמְקַבֵּל אוֹתָם וּמְכָרָם וּנְתָנָם מַתָּנָה לַאֲחֵרִים אוֹ הִפְסִיד חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם. וְהַכּל בִּרְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה. כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַמִּתְעַסֵּק שֶׁמֵּת נִשְׁבָּע בַּעַל הַמָּעוֹת וְגוֹבֶה מֶחֱצָה. וְאִם יֵשׁ שָׁם עֵדִים שֶׁהַמִּטַּלְטְלִין אֵלּוּ מִן הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁל עֵסֶק הֵם נוֹטֵל אוֹתָם בַּעַל הַמָּעוֹת בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. וְאֵין בַּעַל חוֹב וְלֹא אִשָּׁה נוֹטְלִים מֵהֶם כְּלוּם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה בָּהֶם רֶוַח הֲרֵי חֵלֶק הָרֶוַח שֶׁל מֵת שֶׁל יוֹרְשָׁיו וְיִטּל בְּאוֹתוֹ חֵלֶק בַּעַל חוֹב וְהָאִשָּׁה:


When a person gives a colleague money to purchase produce, with the profits to be split among them, and the colleague fails to do so, all the investor has against him are complaints. If he has definite proof that he purchased produce and then sold it, he may expropriate the profit from him against his will.


הַנּוֹתֵן מָעוֹת לַחֲבֵרוֹ לִקַּח בָּהֶם פֵּרוֹת לְמַחֲצִית שָׂכָר וְלֹא לָקַח אֵין לוֹ עָלָיו אֶלָּא תַּרְעֹמֶת. וְאִם נוֹדַע בִּרְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה שֶׁלָּקַח וּמָכַר הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ הַשָּׂכָר בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ:


When a person gives a colleague money to purchase produce with the profits to be split among them, the colleague may purchase any type that he desires. He should not, however, buy garments, wood or the like.

When a person hires a colleague to run a store with the profits to be split among them, if the person hired as the storekeeper is a craftsman, he should not work at his craft, for his attention is not focused on the store while he is working at his craft. If, however, his partner was present in the courtyard at that time, it is permitted. The person hired as the storekeeper should not purchase and sell other merchandise. If he does, the profit should be split.


נָתַן לוֹ מָעוֹת לִקַּח בָּהֶן פֵּרוֹת לְמַחֲצִית שָׂכָר לוֹקֵחַ בָּהֶן מִכָּל מִין שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. וְלֹא יִקַּח לֹא כְּסוּת וְלֹא עֵצִים. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. הַמּוֹשִׁיב אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בַּחֲנוּת לְמַחֲצִית שָׂכָר אִם הָיָה אֻמָּן לֹא יַעֲסֹק בְּאֻמָּנוּתוֹ לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵינָיו עַל הַחֲנוּת בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעוֹסֵק בְּאֻמָּנוּתוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה שֻׁתָּף עִמּוֹ בֶּחָצֵר מֻתָּר. וְלֹא יִהְיֶה לוֹקֵחַ וּמוֹכֵר דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים וְאִם לָקַח וּמָכַר הַשָּׂכָר לָאֶמְצַע:

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.
The Mishneh Torah was the Rambam's (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon) magnum opus, a work spanning hundreds of chapters and describing all of the laws mentioned in the Torah. To this day it is the only work that details all of Jewish observance, including those laws which are only applicable when the Holy Temple is in place. Participating in one of the annual study cycles of these laws (3 chapters/day, 1 chapter/day, or Sefer Hamitzvot) is a way we can play a small but essential part in rebuilding the final Temple.
Download Rambam Study Schedules: 3 Chapters | 1 Chapter | Daily Mitzvah